The House adopted by voice vote HR 63 which invites vendors of small arms to relocate to Indiana. Simple resolutions are essentially useless, but the General Assembly passes a number of them anyway. The form of the resolution is a laundry list of “Whereas”s ostensibly representing uncontested truths followed by the coup de grace of the “Be It Resolved” section. Here are some of the “Whereas”s:
Whereas, All power is inherent in the people and all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on the people’s authority and instituted for the people’s peace, safety, and well-being;
Whereas, The free, ongoing, and unencumbered manufacture of modern and serviceable firearms and ammunition is necessary to protect these rights;
Whereas, The constitutional rights of Americans to produce and bear arms for the protection of themselves, their states, and their country are being infringed;
Then there is a bunch of bragging on ourselves for our tax policy and wild west approach to firearms. And, in the final “be it resolved” section, the House proclaims, “the Indiana House of Representatives notes that the state of Indiana, being a highly attractive state in which to work and live, invites these companies to move to Indiana and finally be free to work and grow here.” (emphasis added)
This video comes to mind for some reason:
Whereas, The constitutional rights of Americans to produce and bear arms for the protection of themselves, their states, and their country are being infringed;
Prove it, Epsilon Semi-morons.
Look at the frail hoplophobes run under the nearest bed at the slightest glimmer of independence, freedom and masculinity.
Yeah, little dude, they are urinating down their leg before the great and powerful HR 63.
There is nothing like lying paranoids to strike fear into the hearts of rational Masson’s Blog readers.
Why do you hate independence and freedom so much, and assume that patriarchal, outdated, and morally indefensible conceptions of “masculinity” have anything at all to do with either?
Sometimes, when you put sugar out to draw the bees, flies come instead. This kind of advertising may attract business and other residents that we may not particularly want, and which may tend to drive away the kinds of business we need, unless we really want to compete with the bottom. Some believe that if you can’t be the best, maybe you can be really good at being the worst. But it could certainly give the license plate slogan writers some food for thought, like “Indiana: Purveyor of death, destruction and ignorance”. That should drive out any middle class people that may be left, unless one is an angry old white man.
We’re all in agreement that the kind of business we want in the state attracts a type of worker who has little use for high-density living, public transportation and any form of collectivism.
This bill seems like it attracts the right kind of folk.
The whole “resolution to promote revolution” is really quire entertaining.
One in five Hoosier works in manufacturing, instead of higher paying knowledge base industries, and fails to mention that Indiana’s high sales tax would reduce sales of penis replacements in the manufacturer’s new Club for Growth paradise.
This over-60 white male is hardly a “hoplophobe”, as I have been a gun owner, and learned to shoot at age 12. But I do fear those with an irrational and highly emotional adherence to those firearms intended purely for homicide, e.g., the so-called “assault weapons”, which are military knock-offs intended only for mass murder, as well as large-scale magazines. Then there are those who maintain, without any basis in law or history, that they have an unlimited right to any and all weapons whatsoever, without limitation. My own emotional response is that they are delusional kooks who are blind to the carnage created by gun ownership in this country, and refuse to address the very real problems even with “responsible” gun ownership.
I wish hate speech such as yours were banned.
Freedom: Hate speech??? What hate speech?
Greg: When you read “hate speech”, that should be translated as “rational discussion I disagree with”.
What “assault weapon?”
Thousands of innocent people die yearly to protect the rights of these delusional kooks.
I have three handguns in the safe, a shotgun and a rifle. I hunted as a kid and as a young man. The little dude sure loves his histrionic ravings.
This was not “C.” It was Carlito Brigante.
Although I know Doug didn’t intend to open up a broad discussion of the Second Amendment, with all the talk about “responsible gun ownership” tied to attitudes on regulation, none other than Justice Scalia had this to say in the Heller decision:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
After listing some familiar limitations on the right now in force, Scalia adds in a footnote that his list “does not purport to be exhaustive,” leaving open the possibility that the Second Amendment may allow for still more regulations.
So where these folks who are insisting that after Heller their rights under the Second Amendment have no limits get this idea remains a total mystery.
Good points, Don. My back of the envelope analysis, I think that the right to bear arms for defense of person or home is not fundamental and subject to rational basis analysis. Other circuts have held, I think, that gun restrictions are subject to mid-level scrutiny.
Scalia was widely excoriated for those words. Read better blogs. Of course, Scalia’s blather was merely dictum. And since when is the Supreme Court the grantor of rights?
Widely? The NRA, psychopaths and perpetually discontented anarchists.
You’re in good company, little dude.
The Supreme Court does not “grant” rights. But it IS the final arbiter of what rights we have under our laws and Constitution. And please point to ANY Constitutionally-protected right which is unlimited? Speech? You cannot yell “FIRE” in a crowded theatre. The right to life can be forfeited by conviction of a capital crime.
No question that this is an area dominated by fear, based on isolated events which are highly unlikely among the fearful. Murder by gun is unlikely, especially among middle-aged white people, who if they own a gun are much more likely to be killed by suicide. Murder by handgun is around 5 per 100,000, while suicide is around 11 per 100,000. People think that carrying a gun suddenly makes you the Lone Ranger, when it just makes you more dangerous to yourself and other innocent people, kind of like a canister of poison gas. All that stuff about protecting yourself from the evil people, particularly in Indiana, where you can get a license for a handgun without knowing which end the bullet comes out of, is fantasy, legal blather notwithstanding. The whole business is one big setup for a Darwin Award. Now THAT’S what the legislature is encouraging instead of business: Darwin Award competition.
Re the recent news coverage of the demonstrations at the Statehouse for and against the enactment of gun control laws, with the young megaphone-brandishing moms on the one side and the assault-rifle-brandishing young’uns on the other: Didn’t that look insane to you?
Fear sometimes brings together some very interesting people.